Advanced Materials vs Advanced Functional Materials: Which Journal for Your Paper?

Advanced Materials asks: "Is this a new material or a fundamentally new way to make/understand materials?"

Advanced Functional Materials asks: "Does this material do something useful?"

Your 20-page synthesis of a new perovskite with novel crystal structure might be perfect for Advanced Materials. The same perovskite used as a solar cell component probably goes to Advanced Functional Materials. If you've integrated it into a full device and demonstrated performance metrics, Advanced Functional Materials is the target.

Advanced Materials desk-rejects when:

• The synthesis is incremental variation of published methods
• Characterization is standard (no new insights into material properties)
• The material itself is already known, only application context is new
• Results lack sufficient novelty or scope

Advanced Functional Materials desk-rejects when:

• The functional performance is inferior to published benchmarks with no clear advantage
• The application demonstration is preliminary or incomplete
• The material is not adequately characterized
• The paper doesn't clearly show why this material is better for the stated application

Submit here if you have:

• A genuinely new material composition or crystal structure
• A novel synthesis route with clear advantages (lower cost, less toxic, scalable, etc.)
• New characterization that reveals unexpected material properties
• Fundamental understanding of why a material behaves as it does
• Work that other materials scientists across subfields will care about

The bar is pure materials science novelty. Application is secondary to the advance itself.

Example: "We synthesized a new thiazole-based polymer with record hole mobility through a novel condensation route." That's Advanced Materials territory. The material matters because the property is new or the method is first-of-its-kind.

Submit here if you have:

• A known or standard material applied in a new way
• A material system with demonstrated functional advantage (device metrics, performance data)
• A complete functional story: synthesis, characterization, and proof-of-concept application
• Work showing this material is better than existing options for a specific use case
• Interdisciplinary work bridging materials science and engineering/device applications

The bar is functional proof. The material doesn't need to be new if its application is compelling and well-demonstrated. Comprehensive device characterization with clear performance benchmarking against existing solutions is what AFM editors want to see.

Example: "We applied the known perovskite XYZ as a novel photodetector, achieving response time 10× faster than silicon comparators." That's Advanced Functional Materials. The novelty is the functional combination, not the material itself.

Papers that could go either way usually land at Advanced Functional Materials because:

1. More editors, broader scope
2. Slightly higher acceptance rate
3. If you're unsure whether your materials novelty is "Advanced Materials enough," submission to AFM first costs less in total timeline

That said, if you believe your work belongs in Advanced Materials, submit there. Editors at both journals understand the distinction and won't hold it against you if your framing is clear and honest.

If Advanced Materials desk-rejects your paper with actionable feedback (not a "not novel enough" form letter), you can immediately transfer to Advanced Functional Materials through Wiley's system. The transfer usually takes 3-5 business days, and you keep your submission date for impact factor indexing purposes.

If Advanced Functional Materials rejects you, the usual next step is Small (IF 12.1, broader nano scope) or another field-specific journal. Don't submit directly to Advanced Materials after an AFM rejection unless the comments specifically suggested your contribution was actually about materials novelty.

Choose Advanced Materials if your primary contribution is a new material, a new synthesis route, or a new way of understanding material behavior. Advanced Materials (IF 27.4, JCI 3.68, Q1 rank 4/187) has a ~6% acceptance rate, so the novelty bar is high, but if the material itself is the news, this is where it belongs.

Choose Advanced Functional Materials if you're demonstrating what a material can do in a real application. AFM (IF 19.0, JCI 2.70, Q1 rank 9/187) is still highly selective at 12-18% acceptance, but the emphasis shifts from "is the material new?" to "is the function compelling?" If your paper has more device data than synthesis data, AFM is the more honest target.

Try Advanced Materials first, then AFM, if you genuinely aren't sure. Both use Wiley's system, both charge the same APC (~5,200 EUR), and a desk rejection from Advanced Materials doesn't prejudice your AFM submission. The practical cost is 2-3 weeks of timeline. For many authors, that's worth the shot at the higher-impact venue.

Skip both if the work is narrowly focused on device engineering without materials novelty (IEEE journals), or if the application is biomedical without strong materials characterization (Biomaterials or ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering may fit better).

Both journals charge the same APC and are published by Wiley:

Cost should not factor into your choice. Same publisher, same APC, same institutional agreement coverage. The decision is purely about editorial fit.

If both journals desk-reject, the Wiley ecosystem offers stepping stones:

Papers transfer between Wiley journals within 3-5 business days with your submission date preserved. This means trying Advanced Materials first and falling back to AFM costs only 2-3 weeks, a reasonable gamble for the IF difference.

An Advanced Materials vs AFM submission readiness check can identify whether your materials novelty clears the Advanced Materials bar or is better positioned for AFM before you submit.